People still want CHANGE. They haven't seen any, so they'll try the other guys.

[scarletwoman]

People see their jobs still disappearing. People see their homes still getting foreclosed. People see the Banksters and Wall Street still living high on the hog.

So what do you do when you see so much stuff that pisses you off still happening? You go out and vote for CHANGE. Change from the party in power that hasn't done shit to help you out.

THAT'S the "message" that was sent by the Massachusetts voters. CHANGE.

They didn't get change in 2008, instead they got worsening unemployment, more foreclosures, Wall Street and Bankster bailouts, and an expanding war in Afghanistan.

They still want CHANGE. So what choice do they have except to vote for a different party than the one that failed to deliver what they want?

All the finely honed political arguments about ideological differences don't mean SHIT. People want things in this country to CHANGE. They're sick of being fucked over.

They may not have a damn clue about HOW and WHY and by WHOM they are being fucked over, they just know they're being fucked over. And when they perceive that the fucking over is still going on under the party that's in power, they'll turn around and vote for the OTHER party -- because in our ossified two-party system, that's the ONLY option they have.

People sure as hell notice that jobs aren't coming back. People sure as hell notice that foreclosures haven't stopped. And people sure as hell noticed the Wall Street & Bankster bailouts.

The fucking over of the working class in the U.S. isn't privileged information, they KNOW they're being fucked. And with the Dems in power, that's who the fuckees will look upon as the fuckers.

They don't like what they're getting so far, so they'll go the other way. The whole of our political system is stuck in a rut. If you don't like what one team is doing, what choice do you have except change sides?

There's no subtlety in backlash -- all people have is their vote. And all people have to vote for is either this team or that team. If you're unhappy with one team, your only way to express it is by voting for the other team.

People don't actually believe in politician's promises, they're not THAT stupid. They simply react in the moment -- either they feel good about what's happening and want to stay with the team that's doing what they like, or they DON'T like what's happening; in which case they can't do anything except switch teams.

It's not rocket science.

sw

[OhioChick]

1. You're absolutely correct. n/t

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

2. That is pretty much it in a nutshell n/t

[The Wielding Truth]

3. Ding. Ding. AND Ding!

[Dinger]

26. And Another From The Dinger!

*Ding*

[leftstreet]

4. K&R

:applause:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. the same thing is happening in the UK

they want the other guys now (Tories - the party of the rich)

[treestar]

6. Then they are crazy

The only change they'll get from Republicans is nothing done! Nothing to help them if they are unemployed, etc.

If they think the Dems did not help them enough, then they should see how little the Republicans will help them.

[canoeist52]

So show 'em something different from democrats.

yes, it's crazy but where else are they gonna go?

[scarletwoman]

8. It doesn't matter. This is not a rational process, it's emotional.

When you're caught in a binary system there's nothing you can do but swing to one side or the other. If one side isn't delivering what you want, then you turn around and go to the other side.

[dflprincess]

9. And what have the Democrats done?

Besides bailing out Wall Street and the banks and telling the public they'll soon be forced to buy "coverage" from the same companies who have been blocking their access to health care for years?

[NoSheep]

81. Not enough, but I have to pay attention when I read the positive news.

It's the only thing that keeps me going I guess.

[HughBeaumont]

58. "You think hiring a professional is expensive and painful, hire an amateur."

:)

[tekisui]

61. The Dems need show, CLEARLY, without pussy-footing that

there is a difference.

[AngryOldDem]

63. People have had it.

What part of that do you not get?

Maybe November will finally make it clear to you.

I blame everyone in the political process -- both Democrat and Republican -- for this mess.

[Forkboy]

74. Treestar, we have to come up with something better than, "Hey, at least we're not them."

[NoSheep]

80. Well we already KNOW they are crazy. I was thinking just what you are saying

this morning. I remember when it was much worse. That's my only silver lining. It really could be worse and it HAS been worse. (That doesn't mean we shouldn't be raising hell though but what you say is true)

[butterfly77]

98. They can't seem to hear very well..

the republiCONS said don't do anything just let the free market work,tax cuts,privatize everything,no regulations,tax credits for them,keep shipping jobs overseas,keep bush's tax cuts for the rich,etc..

The chamber of commerce and wall street have already spoken we will keep firing people as long as we don't get these things,they will try to kill healthcare if the insurance companies,pharmeceuticals aren't allow to charge $300.00 for an aspirin.

[BlueStater]

7. Then people are idiots because it's "the other guys" who put us in this mess in the first place

Good fucking grief. People's memories are so short that they can't even remember four years ago?

They'd just be replacing one kind of suck with an even worse kind of suck. Sadly, I think the only thing that will get us out of this mess is for a third party to be created.

[KonaKane]

11. True. But how quickly we forget

This is almost like 1994 all over again. A nightmare I didn't want to repeat.

[BlueStater]

14. All I can tell you is that if those idiots get back in power...

...we'll go from having little hope for recovery to absolutely no hope at all.

[KonaKane]

50. Absolutely. Which makes tonight's debacle all the more bitter

Because it has Democrats running in all directions trying to make a frantic sense of all this....

"We need to be more centrist!" the Lieberman idiots will cry.

"We need to be more anti-corporate!" the so called progressives will cry.

All of them forgetting what got us in power last November - the abject failure of the conservative agenda.

This is worse than a bad dream.

[scarletwoman]

12. People vote in the NOW. They aren't operating out of historical context, they're operating

out of immediate perceptions.

[BlueStater]

28. Then people need to wake up.

However we should solve our problems, replacing one group of assholes with a different group of assholes isn't the anwser.

Frankly, I'm at the point where I think both parties need to be terminated for good.

[scarletwoman]

34. No, the POLITICIANS need to wake up.

[BlueStater]

36. The politicians will never wake up.

I gave up a long time ago on weasels like Harry Reid. He can go to Hell.

If there is ever to be real change in this country, the people need to stop relying on these losers to help them.

[scarletwoman]

99. It's a rigged game. Elections are nothing but theater mounted by the Ruling Class

to dazzle the groundlings and fool them into believing that their votes will make a difference.

As Emma Goldman said it so well: "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

[Hardrada]

10. People are mad at being powerless and sneered at by the likes

of Rahm Emmanuel and his Wall Street cronies and so they will pick up and throw anything they can get their hands on so to speak. They did so today. And the discontented repugs go for Ron Paul.

[krabigirl]

17. Um, Brown is no Ron Paul. I'm no fan of Paul, but he is completely different.

[Hardrada]

27. I didn't mean to equate Brown with Ron Paul.

What I meant was that the GOP folks have their discontented people too as do the Dems and they had someplace to go in 2008. I actually agree with some of Ron Paul's stands in regard to the Middle East and the wars there.

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. Remember the career of another senator...

...elected in '91 -- a shock upset after the death of a beloved home-state senator? Everyone said that his election marked a sea-change in national politics especially in the field of health care reform.

You mean the name 'Harris Wofford' didn't leap to mind?

[Hannah Bell]

15. Exactly. Unfortunately, neither party can deliver because they're both in thrall to the same

interests, the true rulers & policy-makers of the country, The Money Party. So the only "change" coming is change most people won't like, change that drains the masses to feed elites.

[Blue_In_AK]

16. I just said the same thing to my husband not 10 minutes ago.

As usual, we share a brain, SW. :)

[scarletwoman]

20. Whoaa...

(cue Twilight Zone music...)

Well, at least if someone accuses me of having half a brain, I've got a good excuse for it! :D

[Blue_In_AK]

23. No, my friend,

we are SUPERbrain. :woohoo: :woohoo:

[scarletwoman]

32. OMG!

I am TOTALLY :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[donheld]

51. Ok SUPERbrain

:D PLEASE try to channel the White House. Somebodies gotta fix this shit fast.
Maybe if Two of you channel together someone will hear.

[scarletwoman]

91. I'm sorry. It's Blue's turn with the SUPERbrain,

and I think she's probably busy gutting a moose or something.

But rest assured, our mighty telepathic powers will be brought to bear soon enough.

And then, WATCH OUT! The Ruling Class will tremble before our might!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... cue :maniacal laughter:

sw

[Javaman]

68. Personally, I welcome our new SUPERbrain overlords. :) nt

[scarletwoman]

92. Your fealty is noted.

Great shall be thy rewards!

As soon as SUPERbrain can think of some...

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. We have a WINNAH

[amborin]

19. people feel that way in Colorado, too: article:

Donny Seyfer, the manager of an auto repair shop here, had high hopes when President Obama and Congress tackled health care as their top priority early last year.

snip

Mr. Seyfer’s disappointment was echoed in dozens of interviews here and in Fort Collins, Colo. People from both sides of the political spectrum — and apolitical consumers — said they were deeply skeptical about the health care bill being put together by Congress and the White House.
The concern illustrates the challenge Mr. Obama and Democratic lawmakers face in trying to meld House and Senate bills in a way that can be sold to the public. All kinds of issues are still in play, from how to cover abortion to whether to tax high-cost health plans.

snip

But Republicans are already using the bill as ammunition against Democrats who voted for it, like Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado.

About 800,000 Colorado residents, representing one-sixth of the state’s population, are uninsured. The state’s politics are mixed and somewhat unpredictable. Colorado has a sizable contingent of people who want a single-payer government-financed health care system, as well as libertarians and Tea Party protesters opposed to big government.
Few of those interviewed here expect to see direct benefits from the legislation. Many complained of sweetheart deals done to win votes in the Senate. Liberals and conservatives alike said Congress was too influenced by special interests.
Tamara L. Kirch, who is uninsured and stands to benefit from the legislation, bristled at the proposed requirement to buy insurance. “We have a frontier mentality,” s. Kirch said. “I don’t want the government telling me what to do.” (She feels the same way about abortion: “The government should not tell a woman what to do with her womb.”)

snip

Mr. Obama carried the state with 54 percent of the vote in 2008. But Gov. Bill Ritter Jr., a Democrat who was facing a tough fight for re-election, pulled out of the race last week.

snip

“Republicans misled people and tried to scare seniors by putting out misinformation about death panels,” Mr. Vaughn said. “Then to pass a bill in the Senate, Democrats stooped to bartering for votes. It demeans the whole process.”

snip

“President Obama campaigned on a promise to change the way things are done in Washington,” Mr. Stone said. “But it seems like business as usual to me.”
Richard F. Barkey, a former chairman of the Jefferson County Democratic Party and a leader of the advocacy group Health Care for All Colorado, said: “We had huge expectations for President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. But they could not build a dam big enough to stop the flood of money from corporate interests that have influenced the health care debate.”

Eliza Carney, a member of the same group, said, “Obama and his administration have really — I won’t say betrayed, but — disappointed us.”
State Representative John M. Kefalas, a Democrat from Fort Collins, said: “Not enough in either bill focuses on: How do you increase the value of our health care system? How do we bring down costs?” A government-run insurance company, or public option, could hold down costs by putting competitive pressure on private insurers, Mr. Kefalas said. But it was “bumped out of the Senate bill because of special-interest influence,” he said.

Brandon C. Shaffer, a Democrat who is president of the Colorado Senate, said, “It’s amazing to me how the insurance industry lobby has shaped the debate in Washington.” That sentiment was echoed on the other side of the political divide. “Congress and this administration don’t listen to us anymore,” said Lesley A. Hollywood, a Republican and member of the Northern Colorado Tea Party group. “They are catering to special interests, health insurance and pharmaceutical companies.”

snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/health/policy/11healt... independents&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all

[scarletwoman]

29. Great article, thank you.

You should trim it to 4 paragraphs, however, per DU rules. It's a very informative piece, though.

[amborin]

35. i will

trim it, though parts of paragraphs are spread out to make it more readable

[Joe the Liberal]

87. Good article, I live here in CO. n/t

[ibegurpard]

you are correct

I think that even if people perceived we were heading down the right road they may be willing to cut some slack but the perception, rightly or wrongly, isn't there.

[shraby]

21. I disagree..we HAD the other guys and where did it

get us? Another day older and deeper in debt.

[scarletwoman]

38. Voting isn't a rational act for most people. It's a reaction to current circumstances.

Most voters aren't political junkies who follow every in and out of policy and legislation. They vote on their feelings. If they're feeling bad, if they're feeling pissed off, then they're going to vote for "change" -- meaning change from whoever is in power that day.

[ProSense]

22. So they just want change for change's sake? They're not interested in what kind of change?

Just change? Are you saying people were happy to see the change ushered in by the Bush and the Republicans, the "other guys"?

[upi402]

30. Change that is change, not just a new face with no opposition to power

That's what I want.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
There aint but a dime's worth of difference between the two parties.

[scarletwoman]

40. They'd like to see change that makes their lives better. Since their lives currently AREN'T better,

they want to roll the dice again. It's always a gamble -- maybe the odds will favor them THIS time.

[HughBeaumont]

84. When you pull the Republican slot machine -

Loooooooooo-SAH. Every. Single. TIME. Like clockwork.

They have no shining track record.

They have NO positive accomplishments towards the middle/working/poor classes.

They waste trillions of tax dollars

They have caused untold amounts of fiscal, international and economic damage through their brain-dead policies.

Anyone who thinks they're going to get better and that anyone coming down the GOP pike is going to be ANY different than Reagan/Bewsh (in fact, they're only getting worse and MORE fanatic, if that's at all possible) and ANY better towards meeting the needs of the middle/working/poor classes needs kicked DEAD in the ass.

[Smashcut]

44. You seem to forget that Bush campaigned on breaking away from the "drama" of the Clinton years

i.e. a return to "traditional values" and all that bullshit.

So yes, in a sense, you're supporting the OP's argument w/ that example.

[Dinger]

24. K & R

:patriot:

[moondust]

25. Right. Let's try more obstructionism!

It's hopeless.

[scarletwoman]

41. It wouldn't be hopeless if people felt like the Dems were actually doing things to help them.

But life just keeps getting harder for lots and lots of people. Wages are going DOWN, more people are ending up homeless, nobody's getting ahead but the richest of the rich.

And all the Dems have to show for a years worth of legislative fucking around is a health care bill with mandates and tax increases. It's only logical to want to obstruct THAT.

[moondust]

49. Knee-jerk reactionary voting is a dead end.

Things may indeed be bad but stupid contrary voting for the Party of Nothing will only make things worse. After all, they are largely responsible for creating it. If voters don't understand that then it's hopeless.

And many people know that there is more to the current unfinished health care bill than "mandates and tax increases." If it were truly an abomination then I doubt Bernie Sanders and some others would even consider voting for it.

[scarletwoman]

52. Sure it's a deadend - so what? It's the reality of how people vote.

It does no good to rail against it and condemn people for voting the way they do. The ONLY thing to do is accept the reality and then give them a damn good reason to vote for YOU.

As I've said above, for most people, voting isn't a rational act, it's an emotional reaction.

[moondust]

53. That's why it's hopeless.

"Duh, I'm votin' for the guy who'll make things worse cuz things ain't gettin' better fast enough."

[DisgustedInMN]

65. What I don't understand..

.. is why this very simple realistic fact doesn't sink into some peoples heads. Yet, the "all-knowing" triangulators get caught flatfooted every time.

The Democratic Party does indeed need to "move to the center." The problem is, that these "brilliant strategists" don't comprehand that "the center" is to the LEFT, NOT to the right. They best grasp that reality and make a significant course correction, or be prepared for a bloodbath come November.

There's a huge storm brewing and anyone with at least half a functional brain sees it.

'scuse me while I sharpen my pitchfork and heat up some tar.


:yoiks:

[scarletwoman]

96. Well said.

It's really very simple. If the Dems are perceived as not doing anything to improve the lives of the ordinary citizens, the ordinary citizens will vote against them.

[DisgustedInMN]

66. dupe delete

[DisgustedInMN]

67. double dupe delete

[WillyT]

31. Exactly Right SW, Exactly Right !!! - K & R !!!

Spot on.

:kick:

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

45. Thank you.

:hi: back atcha!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. The people voted for "change". They got politics-as-usual and the status quo.

Complete with back-room deals, more payoffs from the lobbyists, and more payoffs to the corporations.

Not to mention more unemployment, lower paying jobs, and a lot of double talk about hope and patience.

And, excuses, lots of excuses.

[scarletwoman]

46. Exactly!

Well said, thank you.

:hug:
sw

[Dr.Phool]

37. K&R! Two of them.

We need NEW people. Both parties are self-destructing.

[Smashcut]

39. Nailed it.

This healthcare debacle is just the latest example of severe mismanagement of expectations. Create a huge "movement" behind CHANGE in 2008, then perpetuate the same way of doing things (with some refinements) in 2009. Instead of cutting backroom deals w/ pharma and insurance cos, Obama should have gotten behind a plan that truly put the people FIRST and made it his business to sell it at every press op he could. He should have made it impossible for any legislator to look into a camera and convincingly oppose this bill while claiming to do so in the people's best interest. But you know what? It WASN'T impossible to do that because the bill just plain sucks.

The average voter may not be a policy wonk but they know enough to see that what they're getting is nothing like what they were promised. So they vote for the other guy, even though they should know better.

[democracy1st]

42. K & R

[Ardent15]

43. "We don't need a third party, we need a FIRST party."

You are absolutely correct. Neither party has SUBSTANCE to offer to the average American.

[Solly Mack]

47. Pretty much it. They're angry - they reacted.

"They may not have a damn clue about HOW and WHY and by WHOM they are being fucked over, they just know they're being fucked over."

Now that's just the flat-out truth of the matter. Nuances don't penetrate that level of anger. Facts don't either...tapping into & manipulating that anger does though.

You can't teach critical thinking in a burning house.

[scarletwoman]

54. "You can't teach critical thinking in a burning house." I like that.

If there's one thing that the Right is expert at, it's "tapping into & manipulating that anger".

This is our biggest problem. If a Dem majority can't produce real, tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary Americans, they WILL be angry, and they WILL fall for the siren song of right wing populism. And all the nuance and reasonable arguments in the world won't penetrate those who are motivated by emotion.

sw

[Lugnut]

48. Sad but true.

I've heard it all from my friends. Where are all the jobs that were promised? Where is the health care program that competes with the insurance companies? Where is the end to the killing and dying in the wars? Where are the stiffer regulations on the banksters? Where is the change I was promised?

I try to remain hopeful but it's not getting me or anyone else that I know anywhere.

[harun]

55. The voters are not going to be happy with the Dem leadership appeasing big business

They need to do what their constituents voted for them to do.

I would like to see movement in these areas:

* Ending Cuba embargo, normalizing relations
* Single Payer Health Care
* Making higher education more accessible and affordable to Middle/Lower class
* Making housing more accessible and affordable to Middle/Lower class
* Reducing military spending
* Ending occupation of Iraq
* Ending occupation of Afghanistan
* Closing Guantanamo Bay
* Capping Credit Card interest rates
* Getting electric cars available for sale (not lease)
* Building new high speed rail routes

So far I have seen none.

[annabanana]

56. "They simply react in the moment " - and go with the guys who

screwed them in the first place?

"they're not THAT stupid"

Please tell me then, how stupid, exactly, are they?

[TxRider]

97. Better to kill HCR than let what they are passing get through?

Is that part of the thinking?

[scarletwoman]

101. As I've been endeavoring to point out over & over in this thread, for most of the electorate

voting is NOT a rational act. It is an emotional reaction to the most prevelant stimuli of the moment.

Americans, by in large, have no generational memory. It's been wiped out of our society by mass media (television) peddling a simulcrum of reality for decade after decade.

As I said in my OP -- people have no idea of the HOW or WHY or WHO, they only know that they feel fucked over. So they vote in reaction against whoever's in power -- hoping that will help them to stop being fucked over.

sw

[HughBeaumont]

57. Job creation is something the private sector refuses to do no matter WHO is in office.

Unless the jobs they're creating aren't on shore.

I'm not getting who's going to be the one to stop rich greedy old men to stop loving megaprofits. It sure isn't going to be the Republicans. Democrats will at least try to get an inch out of Corporate America before failing miserably at getting any sympathy whatsoever out of criminal shitbags who seem to think that shrinking their customer base via mass fire-a-thons is an intelligent way of doing business. The only bone tossed is half-baked policy for the middle/working/poor classes, advantage-as-always to the rich.

Republicans go ankles up from the get-go, enriching themseleves and screwing the "little people" out right away. You'd get no bone at all, the wealth inequality and wars exacerbate and Friedman disaster corporatism survives yet again. It makes me laugh my ass off every time when those assholes assure the 95% that "THEY'RE on the side of the working class! THEY'RE lowering your taxes!" Uh, IDIOTS? A tax cut isn't going to put food on my table or products in my house if there's no liveable wage job to BACK it.

That's the difference. We have a choice between "Bad" and "Much, MUCH worse", all because everything HAS to be about one group of people having greater than the already 7000-fold advantage over the rest of the 99% of this country and all because everybody, for whatever mysterious reason, is SO AFRAID OF THEM.

Why are we SO AFRAID OF THEM???

And until the apathetic American people find 25-40% of themselves out of work, until they find themselves near starvation, living on the streets and without a job prospect for YEARS (not months) . . .. what the hell am I saying? They're never going to rise up and change anything. Compartmentalized people are incapable of doing so. They'll always find SOMEone other than the cancerous GOP wealthy to blame. Minorities. Liberals. The "have-too-littles". The media. The politicians.

Sometimes I just feel the whole thing's almost not worth saving. We bought into this shit-sham and we're forced to lie in it. And we'll do absolutely NOTHING about it, because we're just not as "united" as we think we are. We're weak, scared, coward little mice people. We're too tethered to our jobs. We're NOT FREE.

The corporatist's attitude to all politicians is: "Jobs? No, how about 'You do as we say or we plane crash or shoot you'? How's that sound?"

Far fetched?

What have the middle/working/poor classes recieved in 45 years?

Who's been predominantly in charge of this country for 45 years? That would be either far right Republicans or right-moderate "Democrats", Carter being the exception.

[kath]

76. +1. Great post.

[newspeak]

78. fabulous post

[TxRider]

85. I want to create jobs

I am very nervous as to what the HCR bill will do to employers cost wise, as health care is a very large part of my budget.

It isn't rich greedy old men who create jobs. It's hungry poor young and middle aged men and women men scrabbling to build small businesses. HCR can make or break us and we're nervous.

There is enough uncertainty we cannot plan. There is a lack of credit so we can not finance.

[chimpymustgo]

59. Great post, Scarlet Woman. "All people have is their votes."

[RBInMaine]

60. A VERY deep recession doesn't give way in just one year. Obama said that, and people need reality.

[HughBeaumont]

64. It makes me laugh.

I mean . . . did people SERIOUSLY think the disastrous result that 28 years of Friedman/Reagan-omics wrought would be cured in a year? REALLY?

Have people really not at all been paying attention as to who was predominantly running this country for 28 years, hand-in-hand?

We're extremely lucky we didn't get Great Depression Part II: Bigger, Longer and Uncut. With McCain and Palin, we'd be swimming knee-DEEP in that right about now.

People are pissed at a private sector/corporate America/vampire financial sector problem, but want to blame Barack Obama (and conveniently ignore what Bewsh did to help the vampire class).

It is to laugh.

[scarletwoman]

102. People actually DO want their government to do something to make their lives less miserable.

And when their government doesn't appear to be doing anything to help them, they get pissed off.

You don't seriously believe, I hope, that the average American voter -- who works at some shit job all day and then comes home and sits in front the TV to watch a "reality" show -- has ANY fucking idea about Milt Friedman's economic theories?!?!?

They don't know anything except that they're feeling fucked over. And if they perceive that those in power aren't doing anything about the fucking over, then they're going to turn against them.

[HughBeaumont]

105. If they're not willing to pry their eyes away from Faux, then I can't help them.

I mean, this doesn't even REQUIRE research. All it requires is putting 2 and 2 together. That's it.

When Republicans are in office, what happens? Recession (In Bewsh II's case, 2 of them). Useless wars against created enemies. Financial scandal (that they and the participants mostly get away with (fortunes intact of course) and we pay for). Rampant layoffs and jobless recoveries. Boom BUBBLE CRASH economies. Cold Wars started again just for the hell of it. Terrorist attacks. The National Debt exacerbates. States experience shortfalls and are forced to cut services. Corporatism runs rampant and blatant. Fear is ramped up to new levers. More deregulation and consolidation. Less entrepreneuship.

Now what happens when Democrats are in office? The stock market performs better. Job creation spikes. People are in better moods. Salaries increase. New industries get created and helped. More concern for environmental issues. Less Religion/Government marriage. Yes, Clinton did many good things, but he also did a few Bad things (listening to Phil Gramm and Bob Rubin, 1996 Telecom Act, DADT and NAFTA come to mind right away). Nevertheless, a majority of the American people (except for the grizzled hate crew who still think the Reds are going to push the button any day now) had far more peace of mind than they do when a Pub is in office ruining everything intentionally.

Choosing a politician is not like choosing a winner on American Idol. This isn't a fashion show; this determines what direction the country is going to go in. Americans being apathetic to issues and voting for the candidate "yu'd like t' sit and have a beer with" is how we get incompetents like Reagan and Bewsh the Second. If they cannot put 2 and 2 together and if they cannot see that many people are hurting as a result of the last 10 years of poor governance, then maybe it's a neon sign that says "Step AWAY from the Idiot Box and PAY ATTENTION!"

[scarletwoman]

106. You're still butting your head against the wall, wanting PEOPLE to change.

I'm just pointing out what IS. People AREN'T going to change. They're NOT going to "put 2 and 2 together". They're going to continue to respond emotionally and irrationally to stimuli that they're not even consciously aware of.

The question, therefore, is how to turn their inchoate anger and frustration to your favor. You have to reach them where they are.

[TxRider]

69. It did for the bankers and Wall street

People are not happy with the current situation and telling them it can't improve in a year is not what they want to hear when the mega banks they bailed out are walking away from the recession with a smile and a profit and huge bonuses.

More and more independents are seeing the year long HCR battle as Washington fiddling while Rome burns. Most people have health insurance and are happy with it after all.

[Orsino]

62. In the absence of concrete results clearly comprehensible to eighth-graders...

...voters go for the man with the best hair. It helps if the candidate owns a truck, which is apparently some sort of code for homophobia.

[glitch]

70. There's another level: Brown very specifically ran as a "populist". Croakley ran as a "centrist"

Which everyone is starting to realize is a friendlier term for corporatist.

The fact that Brown is no more populist than any other republican is irrelevent to angry (and likely low information) voters.

And that is without considering any possible election fraud -- perhaps it wasn't even needed in this case. How sad is that?

[lame54]

71. They won't get it - but they are desperate enough to go elsewhere - K&R

[highplainsdem]

72. K&R

[calico1]

73. You are exactly right. n/t

[LibDemAlways]

75. People thought they were voting for change in 08. Obama's

whole campaign was premised on change. It's no wonder given the continuation of the status quo that people are still looking for things to be different. I think Brown's victory reeks of a sort of political desperation on the part of the voter who is probably completely unaware that Brown represents the same special interests as Obama, and that in present day America there really is only one political party - the corporate party. The first politician to actually do something for the American people is going to be a big hero, but he or she will first have to run outside the system and be part of a populist groundswell. There's no way we're ever going to get change electing Dems and Reps who are beholden to corporations.

[newspeak]

77. we've already had the other guys for eight long corrupt fekkin years

who do they think got us into this mess-who do they think shoved FEAR down our throat so they could pass any bullshite act they wanted--who do they think told Wallstreet that you're my base and deregulation is great--who do they think lied us into an unnecessary war that has cost us billions plus lives--who do they think shat on the constitution and compromised the rule of law? People with short term memories, actually, scare me.

[TBF]

79. There are other options.

As Emma said "If Voting Changed Anything, They'd Make It Illegal"

[scarletwoman]

104. Emma was right. And the sooner people understand that, the sooner we might have some hope

of REAL change.

[jpak]

82. Sorry, Scott Brown = Bush, Obama does not = Bush and that is where you are wrong

Anyone that seriously believes that Obama has not brought about REAL change from the Bush years is delusional.

Brown's victory will only IMPEDE progress and change.

What are people smoking?

[TxRider]

86. What are people smoking?

Unemployment checks and foreclosure notices.

While Washington plays games about a HCR bill nobody wants or likes..

[Vidar]

83. K&R.

[Joe the Liberal]

88. True, most voters don't think they just react. n/t

[Cowpunk]

89. Totally Agree. Why don't they get it? NT

[gorfle]

90. Vulgar and succinct. Love it.

"The fucking over of the working class in the U.S. isn't privileged information, they KNOW they're being fucked. And with the Dems in power, that's who the fuckees will look upon as the fuckers."

Well said.

[scarletwoman]

103. Thank you. I very much appreciate the compliment.

:D

[L0oniX]

93. When you're begging for spare change on the street, you don't care which party they are with.

[invictus]

94. K&R

[winninghand]

95. Huh...? Do you think they forgot what’s-his-name already?

:smoke:

[steveorg]

100. The problem is disinformation

Face it. Fox beat Coakley. What percentage of the population gets their opinions directly from Fox based on blatant lies? Murdoch runs America - our worst fascist fears have come true.

Just imagine if 3% were not disinformed. That would have been a 6 point swing and Coakley would have won.

What to do? Find a way to pierce Fox's veil of credibility and expose them to their base as corporatist liars. Commercials that dissect each lie would help, but that's way to expensive.

Perhaps the truth-in-advertising laws could help. If there's a jurisdiction where anyone can bring a truth-in-advertising lawsuit, Fox's "Fair and Balanced" slogan could be challenged. The goal isn't to win, though that would be nice. The goal is to get specific allegations covered by the media.

Even if only it results in a few percentage points, the impact on close races could change America.